From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 03:09:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 03:09:44 -0400 Received: from mail.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.131]:58522 "EHLO shell.webmaster.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 03:09:31 -0400 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Aaron Lehmann" Cc: Subject: RE: Linux 2.4.9-ac6 Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 00:09:49 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > I think, perhaps, the logic should be that a module > shouldn't taint the kernel if: > > 1) The user built the module from source on that machine, OR > > 2) The module source is freely available without restriction I just realized two things. One, there's a strong argument that this should be an AND, not an OR. Second, even if the code is freely available, it might have been locally modified and the local modifications may not be easily available (this can happen even if the code is GPL'd since source distribution is only required if the compiled code is distributed). So the stamping of the module source as freely available would have to have a checksum or something like that. (Unless this is officially deemed to be No Big Deal.) DS